Reentry support pilot programs.
House Bill 1313 creates two pilot programs within the Indiana Department of Correction focused on reentry support for incarcerated and recently released individuals. The first pilot establishes a peer-focused reentry program at five correctional facilities: Indiana State Prison, New Castle Correctional Facility, Branchville Correctional Facility, Indiana Women’s Prison, and Putnamville Correctional Facility. Under that program, the department must use peer mentors—defined as formerly incarcerated individuals—and other qualified staff to provide counseling, mentoring, and related services intended to help incarcerated people prepare for successful reentry into society.
The second pilot creates a housing grant program for discharged incarcerated individuals in Allen, Lake, Marion, and Vanderburgh counties. The department may award grants to community corrections programs, reentry programs, or nonprofit organizations that provide housing and reentry services. Eligible uses include security deposits, application fees, rent, utility deposits, moving costs, short-term rental assistance to avoid eviction, transportation, and classes or programming on housing applications and budgeting. Both pilots are temporary and are set to expire on July 1, 2030, unless extended or replaced.
The bill adds two new chapters to Indiana Code Title 11, Article 10, creating new correctional and reentry-related pilot authorities for the Department of Correction. It does not broadly change sentencing or release law, but it does authorize the department to run structured reentry services inside selected prisons and to distribute grants for housing support in selected counties. The measure would affect incarcerated individuals nearing release, formerly incarcerated people seeking housing, correctional facilities participating in the peer mentor pilot, and local nonprofit or community corrections entities eligible for grants.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge formal sentiment. Based on the bill’s design, the measure appears oriented toward rehabilitation, reducing barriers to reentry, and improving housing stability for people leaving incarceration. The overall framing suggests a policy approach that is supportive of reentry services rather than punitive enforcement.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate, if raised, would likely involve the cost of staffing peer mentors, the effectiveness of peer-led counseling, the scope of the housing grants, and whether the pilot counties and facilities are selected appropriately. Another possible issue is whether the Department of Correction should have discretion to approve grant uses beyond the listed categories.